5.
To my mother, that was born next to the Chilean Andes:
Gracias Mam´a por la vida, que me ha dado tanto!
A quote from a famous Chilean:
“La risa es el lenguaje del alma” - Pablo Neruda
To my father, that was born next to the Austrian Alps:
Danke Vater f¨ur die F¨orderung meiner intellektuellen Neugier
A quote from a famous Austrian:
“The greatest danger in times of turbulence:
it is to act with yesterday’s logic” - Peter F. Drucker

6.
Acknowledgements
This thesis was possible thanks to the strong collaboration between industry and
academia. Therefore, I learned many things in this journey that challenged me deeply
due the dual focus on doing research and achieving organizational impact.
I am grateful to my promotor Paul Grefen and my industrial sponsor in the Nether-
lands for giving me the opportunity and funding to pursue my PhD degree. Thanks
to my co-promotor Marco Comuzzi for helping me in the thesis writing process. I am
specially grateful to Marco, because he stayed in his co-promotor role besides mov-
ing from Eindhoven to London. I want to thank to the committee members of my
dissertation: Isabelle Reymen, Luis Camarinha-Matos, Jos van Hillegersberg and Piet
Ribbers.
In industry, I would like to thank all the business executives that participated in
the workshop sessions. I want to thank Karel, the former CEO that decided to do a
project for researching about future directions of the company. Thanks to Eric, for se-
lecting me for doing this innovation project within Global R&D. Thanks to Marc, the
former COO that conﬁrmed me in this position. I want to thank Caren for the good
discussions that we had in our meetings. She supported me from the very beginning
on persuading our stakeholders in academia and industry for taking this research
direction. I would like to thank her in challenging me on having usable tools for busi-
ness people and for being a great colleague in industry. Thanks to Jack and Bob for
being enthusiastic with my research. Thanks to the Enterprise Architects for having a
great atmosphere during lunch, specially to Ren´e, John, and, Wido. Thanks to Kenan
and Bel´en for their early interest in my research. Thanks to Gerard, for the early dis-
cussions on business models in my ﬁrst year. Thanks to steering committee members
in the U.S.A that challenged me during our sessions: Scott and John.
In academia, I would like to thank my former co-promotor Samuil Angelov for
the support on the ﬁrst years of my research. Regarding software implementations
presented in this dissertation I would like to thank Tim, Aksana, Tatsiana, and Jianli.
Thanks to my former colleagues from the Information System group at the School of
Industrial Engineering: Ricardo for his friendship and good conversations, Heidi for
her excellent mood at lunch, Joel for keeping us up to date with the european football
matches, Zhiqiang for training us on how to pronounce his Chinese name, Mariska
for her sense of humor, Ronny for his capability of asking questions during lunch, and
Jana for sharing her stories on being a mother. I would like to wish the best for their
PhD journey to Rob, Shaya, Nan, Mohammad, Samaneh, Hui, Harold, Firminio, Paulo
and Jan. Thanks to the current and former members of Information Systems group
at the School of Industrial Engineering: Annemarie, Rik, Uzay, Pieter, Jos, Ton, Rob,
Irene, Remco, Claudia, Jochem, Oktay, Anna, Rui, and Ayc¸a. Thanks to Geertje, from

7.
viii Acknowledgements
the Beta Research School for Operations Management and Logistics, for the feedback
on the cover of this dissertation.
Thanks to my family: Gloria, my mother; Egon, my father; and my brother, Wolf-
gang. Specially, thanks to my mother for her unconditional support and love and for
cheering me up in di cult moments during this research. She always stayed in touch
with me during these years thanks to modern technologies and popular mobile mes-
saging services. I would also like to thank Katrin for her support, love, care, and, the
nice food and delicatessens from Austria that kept me motivated in the dissertation
writing process.
Egon L¨uftenegger
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Spring 2014

11.
Chapter 1
Introduction
The service sector is becoming the dominant economic activity in advanced coun-
tries, of which more than 70% of their gross domestic product (GDP) is constituted
by services [114]. However, most of our knowledge about business design, i.e. about
business strategy or business models, has been developed within the framework of
a manufacturing based economy. This economic shift towards service is pushing the
academic world and industry to ﬁnd new perspectives for business design in a service
dominant world [121].
Academics and practitioners from di↵erent backgrounds have recognized the need
for new management tools and frameworks that use a service mindset [121]. These
new e↵orts are being concerted in an interdisciplinary ﬁeld, i.e. Service Science. As
deﬁned in [121], Service Science focuses on fundamental science, models, theories
and applications to drive service innovation through value co-creation.
In this dissertation, we integrate di↵erent perspectives on Service in order to de-
sign a framework and toolset supporting business design in Service Science. We call
this toolset-supported approach Service-Dominant Business Design.
The remainder of this introduction is structured as follows: in Section 1.1, we
introduce the origins of our research. In Section 1.2, we deﬁne our research questions.
In Section 1.3, we outline the process we followed in our research. In Section 1.4, we
eventually outline the structure of this dissertation.
1.1 Research Project Evolution: From CoProFind to Ser-
vice-Dominant Business Design
An asset-based ﬁnancial services company with global footprint, including Europe,
North- and South America, and Asia, has ﬁnanced our research project. In this dis-
sertation, we will refer to this company using the ﬁctitious name AssetFin.
The original goal of the project was to support the design of new business mod-
els by using the concept of contract-based process outsourcing. This goal is stated
in the original project’s name: CoProFind, Contract-based process outsourcing in the
ﬁnancial industry. However, soon after the start of the project, we realized in prac-
tice that there was a need to focus on the real problems of AssetFin, rather than just
developing business models by using a pre-selected solution.
We started to explore the state-of-the-art of business models in the ﬁnancial indus-
try [82]. In the development of this research, we noticed a shift in business models

12.
2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
towards solutions, rather than just focusing on selling goods. For instance, new busi-
ness models adopted by heavy machinery companies like Volvo Trucks or Komatsu of-
fer real time monitoring services with their equipment as a complete solution, rather
than just focusing on the machinery [82]. These solutions o↵ered directly by vendors
to customers could disrupt traditional asset ﬁnancing companies that rely on monthly
fees for leasing assets with or without added services like maintenance.
In academic research, we recognized this shift towards solutions in a novel business
paradigm: Service-Dominant Logic [154], [92]. Service-Dominant Logic shifts the fo-
cus of a company from goods and the value chain, towards services and solutions and
the value network. After presenting the new paradigm to the division Global IT R&D
at AssetFin, we started to research further about the Service-Dominant paradigm and
its adoption within the organization [81].
Business practitioners within AssetFin soon supported this shift towards solu-
tions. Moreover, practitioners at AssetFin started to realize that their partners were
moving away from o↵ering just goods and moving towards solutions. Furthermore,
this new business landscape could disrupt AssetFin’s traditional business model
based on the vendor ﬁnance business model [80].
In this business model, the revenue comes from the leasing fee from the customer.
However, the revenue source comes mainly from the sale of the used asset after the
end of a leasing period with the customer. This revenue source is clearly focused on
the goods leased by AssetFin, but it fails to go beyond the value chain perspective,
as it does not investigate the opportunity to o↵er more complete service solutions to
customers, possibly exploiting a network of other partners.
During the project, we ﬁrst aimed at developing business models for setting new
directions for AssetFin by developing business models focused on assets on the one
hand [166], and business models focused on services on the other hand [91]. In car-
rying out this task, we worked with di↵erent business units focused on di↵erent mar-
kets, such as healthcare, o ce equipment, and its car leasing subsidiary: CarLease.
However, despite the enthusiasm of the managers we spoke with, we realized that
the main obstacle to the deﬁnition of such business models was the lack of an appro-
priate management tool for designing business models that were solution- and value
network-based.
We also realized that the adoption of a new mindset for developing business mod-
els needed to be deﬁned at the strategic level. At this level, we found the need for
a tool to conceptualize and guide the formulation and communication of strategies
driven by the Service-Dominant Logic.
Eventually, we found that once the strategy and business models were delineated,
managers, and in particular IT people, were also concerned with the operationaliza-
tion of the business. In other words, we realized that business design needed also
to focus on the translation of business models into a set of appropriate business pro-
cesses exploiting the capabilities of the company.
From the above analysis, it should come as no surprise that, after reviewing the
literature on business design frameworks and having talked to practitioners, we de-
veloped our business design framework using four layers: strategy, business models,
processes and capabilities. More details about such layers and, in particular, the re-
search questions identiﬁed for our work, are provided in the remainder of this chap-
ter.
2

13.
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT 3
1.2 Problem Statement
Once we identiﬁed the Service-Dominant Logic as the new business paradigm to de-
velop a new way of doing business within AssetFin [81], we established the following
research questions (R.Q):
R.Q.: How to support the implementation of the Service-Dominant Logic in a busi-
ness organization?
Service-Dominant Logic is a mindset that has been recognized as a foundational
theory for the development of Service Science [97]. However, the implementation of
this theory in practice is di cult. By analyzing the literature on the Service-Dominant
Logic, we found that this mindset should be adopted ﬁrst at the strategic level [86].
To extend the adoption of the Service-Dominant Logic beyond the strategic level,
we need to redeﬁne the traditional relationship between strategy, business models,
and business processes.
R.Q. 1.1
R.Q. 1.2
R.Q 1.3
R.Q.1!
!
How to support the
implementation of
the Service-
Dominant Logic in a
business
organization?
!
!
How to formulate and
communicate a
Service-Dominant Strategy?
How to formulate
business models implementing a
Service-Dominant strategy?
How to operationalize
business models that follow
a Service-Dominant
Strategy?
Figure 1.1: Research Questions
As shown in Figure 1.1, the R.Q. is therefore decomposed into three sub-questions.
These three research questions are formulated as follows:
R.Q. 1: How to formulate and communicate a Service-Dominant Strategy?
3

14.
4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Our ﬁrst task is to deﬁne how to formulate and communicate a strategy that fol-
lows a Service-Dominant Logic. To answer each sub-question, we develop artifacts.
To answer our ﬁrst sub-question, we develop an artifact, as a management tool, called
the Service-Dominant Strategy Canvas. The Service-Dominant Strategy Canvas is an
artifact that uses strategic views on the Service-Dominant Logic.
R.Q. 2: How to formulate business models implementing a Service-Dominant strat-
egy?
After deﬁning how to formulate and communicate a Service-Dominant Strategy,
we need to deﬁne how business models are speciﬁed when following this novel strate-
gic approach. Business models have been historically conceptualized by using di↵er-
ent approaches, such as traditional marketing and manufacturing views on strategy.
However, business models have not been conceptualized by using a Service-Dominant
Strategy, due its novelty. In this thesis, we tackle this problem and develop the Service-
Dominant Business Model Radar as an artifact addressing this issue.
R.Q. 3: How to operationalize business models that follow a Service-Dominant
Strategy?
Once the Service-Dominant Strategy and Service-Dominant business model have
been developed, we need to specify a way to translate them into a set of operational
business processes.
Service-Oriented Architecture is a well-known service paradigm in the area of In-
formation Systems (IS) design and development. IS scholars recognize that Service
is a rich context to extend the ﬁeld toward behavioural, economical and organiza-
tional issues [142]. Service-Dominant Logic has been recognized as the foundation
of Service Science. Then, a connection between the management concepts of strategy
and business models needs to be addressed for deﬁning a Service-Dominant Business
framework for business design.
In this stage, we relate the advances in the literature about Service-Oriented Ar-
chitecture at the business level, such as business services and process-based service
compositions, with our research in order to address the three research questions pre-
viously outlined. As a result, we deﬁne a methodology to design services as the ca-
pabilities required to address a given strategy, and how to compose such services into
processes for the operationalization of the business models derived from the strategy.
Hence, in terms of tools, we need to deﬁne a set of tools that enable practitioners at
AssetFin to design a business driven by a Service-Dominant Strategy.
As a research team in the CoProFind project, we envision our framework as the
combination of four layers: Service-Dominant Strategy, Service-Dominant Business
Models, Service Composition, and Business Services [59]. These layers have been
been deﬁned by the CoProFind project team as the BASE/X framework [59]. In this
dissertation, we use these four layers to deﬁne and implement a set of tools that enable
practitioners at AssetFin to design business driven by a Service-Dominant Strategy:
the Service-Dominant Business Design.
In Figure 1.2, we reﬁne our framework in terms of the implementations of each
layer. The implementation of our framework can be perceived as a toolset for Service-
Dominant Business Design. The business design in the ﬁrst two layers is achieved by
4

15.
1.3. RESEARCH APPROACH 5
S-D
Strategy
S-D
Business
Model
Business
Service Composition
Business Services
Service-Dominant Strategy
Design Management Tool
Service-Dominant Business Model
Design Management Tool
Business Services
Tool
Business Service Composition
Tool
Figure 1.2: Service-Dominant Business Design as a toolset
deﬁning management tools for designing a Service-Dominant Strategy and Service-
Dominant Business Models, respectively. At the bottom layers, the business design is
achieved by deﬁning tools for specifying Business Service Compositions and Business
services, respectively.
Regarding the research sub-questions presented in Figure 1.1, the development of
management tools at the strategic and the business model layers answers the ques-
tions R.Q. 1 and R.Q. 2, respectively. The speciﬁcation of Business Service Composi-
tions and Business Services gives an answer to the question R.Q. 3.
1.3 Research Approach
In Figure 1.3, we present an illustration of the research approaches that we take in the
development process of our framework.
S-D
Strategy
S-D
Business
Model
Business
Service Composition
Business Services
Service-Dominant Strategy
Design Management Tool
Service-Dominant Business Model
Design Management Tool
Business Services
Tool
Business Service
Composition
Tool
Action
Design
Research
Literature-
based
Research
with tool
testing
Action
Design
Research
R.Q.1
R.Q.2
R.Q.3
Figure 1.3: Research Methods used during the framework development
We use two Action Design Research cycles and one Literature-based research cy-
5

16.
6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
cle. Each Action Design Research cycle is used for answering R.Q. 1 and R.Q. 2 by
developing management tools for designing Service-Dominant Strategies and Service-
Dominant Business Models. We use a Literature-based research as one research cycle
for answering R.Q. 3 by deﬁning how to specify Business Services and Business Ser-
vice Compositions. We work on these two layers as one research cycle due to the high
dependency between the layers. Business Service Compositions, in fact, cannot be
deﬁned without business services, and business services are likely to remain unex-
ploited as long as they do not appear in related business processes.
We present an overview of the research methods adopted in this thesis as follows:
Action Design Research: Our research is driven by a practitioners’ problem of de-
signing tools to communicate and deﬁne Service-Dominant strategies and business
models. However, the development of these tools requires a close collaboration with
practitioners due its organizational impact in AssetFin. With this in mind, we ﬁrst
considered two possible research methods typically adopted by research done in close
collaboration with practitioners, i.e. Design Research [65] and Action Research [13].
On the one hand, we found that the traditional research method based on Design
research is not suitable at the strategy and business model level, because it exclu-
sively focuses on the development of artifacts, often neglecting the feedback from
practitioners in the development process. On the other hand, Action Research, as a
way to focus on the organization and the involvement of practitioners, often neglects
the role of theory and academic knowledge in the artifact development process.
Eventually, we realized that Action Design Research (ADR) establishes a focus on
artifact development and organizational impact at the same level. In this dissertation,
the cooperative setting between academics and practitioners requires going beyond
the traditional use of design science research in Information Systems. Action Design
Research is a method that combines Design Science research with Action research to
rediscover the dual mission of IS research of making theoretical contributions and
assisting in solving the current and anticipated problems of practitioners [137].
We apply ADR to solve a practice-inspired research question with two artifact de-
velopments: the Service-Dominant Strategy artifact and the Service-Dominant Busi-
ness Model artifact. Each artifact is developed by following the ADR method in its
stages, principles, and artifacts.
As shown in Figure 1.4, artifact development in ADR is guided by four stages and
seven principles. The ADR method comprises four stages [137], namely the prob-
lem formulation, the building, intervention, and evaluation of the artifact, reﬂection and
learning, and the formalization of learning. As the four stages are not simply sequential,
we discuss these stages in our research context in the following.
Stage 1 concerns the problem formulation by identifying the needs within the
organization for achieving a practical and academic relevance.
Stage 2 is about the building, intervention and evaluation of the artifact. In ADR
we can distinguish between researcher-driven and practitioner-driven artifacts. In
Figure 1.5, we present the typical ADR process for researcher-driven artifacts. This is
the perspective that we adopt in this research.
6

17.
1.3. RESEARCH APPROACH 7
Stage&1:&Problem&Formula1on&
Stage&2:&Building,&Interven1on&and&Evalua1on&
Stage&3:&Reﬂec1on&and&Learning&
Stage&4:&Formaliza1on&of&Learning&
Principle&1:&Prac1ce&inspired&research&
Principle&2:&TheoryHIngrained&Ar1fact&
Principle&3:&Reciprocal&shaping&
Principle&4:&Mutually&Inﬂuen1al&Roles&
Principle&5:&Authen1c&and&Concurrent&Evalua1on&
Principle&6:&Guided&Emergence&
Principle&7:&Generalized&outcomes&
Ar1fact&
Recogni1on&
Ar1fact&
Alpha&Version&
Ar1fact&
Beta&Version&
Ar1fact&
Ensemble&Version&
Emerging&Ar1fact&
Version&
Figure 1.4: Action Design Research Stages, Principles and Artifact (Adapted from [137])
ADR
team
Researchers
Practitioners
Users
ArtifactAlpha version Beta version
Contribution to the
Specific ensemble
being designed
Design
principles
Utility for users
ContributionsParticipants Artifact evolution
Figure 1.5: Generic researcher-driven artifact process within the second ADR stage: Building, Evaluation,
and Intervention (Adapted from [137])
As shown in Figure 1.5, the artifact building process is started by researchers with
a version of the artifact focused on the theory (Alpha artifact). Later, a Beta version
of the artifact is co-developed by researchers and practitioners for real use test with
users. The artifact evolves from the initial artifact driven by the researchers, the Alpha
7

18.
8 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
version, towards a Beta Version embodying the contribution of the practitioners of
the ADR team. The artifact’s Alpha version, presented in Section 4.4, is based on the
problem formulation and theoretical premises adopted in Stage 1. Afterwards, the
artifact is tested with users. The participants in the research make di↵erent kinds
of contributions: the researchers establish the design principles derived from theory,
the practitioners contribute to the co-shaping of the artifact, while the users assess
the artifacts’ utility.
In Stage 3, we reﬂect and learn from our experience in Stage 2 in the building,
intervention, and evaluation of the artifact. Stage 2 is usually carried out in parallel
with Stage 3, since ADR does not follow a waterfall development process. We describe
our reﬂections on and learning about the Alpha version in Section 4.4.5, and, with
regard to the Beta version, in Section 4.5.2.
Finally, in Stage 4, we formalize the learning from Stage 3 by generalizing the
experience of our research to a class of problems or a general solution (Section 4.6).
In our case, the class of problems we aim to solve is that of supporting the formulation
and communication of a Service-Dominant Strategy.
Literature-based Research with tool testing: The speciﬁcation tools for the bot-
tom layers of our framework (see Figure 1.3) are deﬁned by using the literature as a
reference. We studied the service concept developed by Marketing scholars, in partic-
ular Service Marketing, and the deﬁnitions of the service concept from Information
Systems scholars. We studied these two research areas in order to deﬁne a multi-
disciplinary perspective on service concepts and service compositions. Our goal is
to bridge these two research areas in order to develop the required interdisciplinary
view set by Service Science.
The novel aspects of the Business Service and the Business Service Composition
tools are limited, because the basic approaches to business services and its composi-
tions already exist. Our tools in these layers aim to complement the management tools
from the ﬁrst two layers by supporting the overall business design process. Hence, we
do not need to apply an iterative construction process such as ADR in this stage. The
testing of the tools does not include an ADR cycle with an iterative development pro-
cess, because the tools were developed as a sequential development process by using
the literature for its construction and tested after their completion. Just like the man-
agement tools developed in the ﬁrst two layers, the speciﬁcation tools deﬁned in the
last two layers are applied within the same context of business design at AssetFin
within its CarLease subsidiary.
8

19.
1.4. THESIS OUTLINE 9
1.4 Thesis Outline
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 3!
!
Service-Dominant
Business
Framework
!
!
Service-Dominant
Strategy
Service-Dominant
Business Model
Business
Services
and
Business
Service
Compositions
Use case validation
Chapter 7!
Chapter 2 Related Work
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 8 Conclusions
Figure 1.6: Thesis structure
In Figure 1.6, we illustrate the outline of this thesis.
Chapter 1, Introduction: the current chapter introduces the research project, re-
search questions, the thesis outline and our research methods.
Chapter 2, Related Work: discusses the related research on strategy, business mod-
els and business design frameworks. By analyzing this body of research, we set the
direction of our research and our approach to business design.
Chapter 3, Service-Dominant Business Framework: brieﬂy discusses the layers of
our framework, the related tools used for each layer, and how these tools are used
together for deﬁning the Service-Dominant Business Design approach.
Chapter 4, Service-Dominant Strategy: presents the development of the Service-
Dominant Strategy artifact by using Action Design Research. The artifact is developed
as a management tool in close collaboration with business practitioners from AssetFin
and evaluated by testing it with users from CarLease for achieving an organizational
impact.
9

20.
10 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 5, Service-Dominant Business Model: presents the development of a man-
agement tool for designing Service-Dominant Business Models. The tool is developed
as an artifact by using Action Design Research in closer collaboration with practition-
ers with AssetFin. The tool is tested and evaluated within CarLease.
Chapter 6, Business Services and Business Service Compositions presents a lit-
erature review of business services and business service compositions to establish
the operational connection between the Service-Dominant Strategy and Service-
Dominant Business Models.
Chapter 7, Use case validation: presents a case study of the application of the
Service-Dominant Business Design framework developed in this dissertation at Car-
Lease. It basically presents the results of the application of the artifacts developed in
the four layers of our framework to a real world case.
Chapter 8, Conclusions: concludes the thesis by providing a ﬁnal discussion of the
contributions of this dissertation.
10

21.
Chapter 2
RelatedWork
Our framework integrates di↵erent aspects of designing Service Dominant Busi-
nesses into one deﬁnite approach. As shown in Figure 2.1, our framework has four
deﬁned layers: Service Dominant Strategy, Service Dominant Business Models, Busi-
ness Service Compositions, and Business Services.
Related Work on !
Strategy
Related Work on !
Business Models
Related Work on !
Business Services!
and !
Business !
Service !
Compositions
Related Work on !
integrated layers!
S-D
Strategy
Business Service
Compositions
S-D
Business
Models
Business
Services
Related Work on Dominant-Logics
Figure 2.1: Related Work
Due to the di↵erent aspects covered in our framework, we need to review the liter-
ature associated with each of its layers. In Figure 2.1, we illustrate how we analyze the
work related with our framework by deﬁning four areas of study: strategy, Business

22.
12 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
Models, Business Services, and Business Service Compositions. We also present the
frameworks that use these di↵erent areas as integrated layers.
As shown in 2.1, our framework starts at the top layer by deﬁning a Service Domi-
nant Strategy. Hence, we start the literature review by focusing on the traditional and
Service Dominant approaches to Strategy. Business Models are covered in the second
layer by deﬁning Service Dominant Business Models. Hence, our literature review
studies the traditional and Service Dominant perspectives on Business Models for es-
tablishing a background for various deﬁnitions, concepts, and tools. Eventually, we
analyze the related literature on frameworks trying to bridge two or more of the de-
ﬁned areas of study. We will show that there is a substantial lack of a comprehensive
framework that takes a Service Dominant approach and deals with business design
on Strategy, Business Models, Business Service Compositions and Business Services.
We decided to study the related literature of Business Services and Business Ser-
vice Compositions layers of our framework in Chapter 6, because our construction
method is based on the literature review rather than ADR.
This chapter is structured as follows: In Section 2.1, we introduce the Goods-
Dominant Logic and the Service-Dominant Logic. In Section 2.2, we review the re-
lated literature on Strategy. In Section 2.3, we study the related literature on Business
Models. In Section 2.4, we analyze the related literature on frameworks that inte-
grate di↵erent aspects. In Section 2.5, we present our conclusions about the analyzed
works.
2.1 The Goods-Dominant and Service-Dominant Logic
Marketing scholars have conceptualized a new mindset: the Service-Dominant Logic.
The Service-Dominant Logic was originally intended for the advancement of the mar-
keting ﬁeld. In this paradigm shift, marketing has moved from a Goods-Dominant
view, in which tangible output and discrete transactions were central, to a Service-
Dominant view, in which intangibility, exchange processes, and relationships are key.
Nowadays, the Service-Dominant Logic has been recognized as a key theory for the
development of an interdisciplinary ﬁeld know as Service Science, Management and
Engineering (SSME): Service Science. The perspective of Service-Dominant Logic
stands in contrast to the perspective of the Goods-Dominant logic of the past, as it
holds service (deﬁned as the application of competences for beneﬁt of others) rather
than goods to be the fundamental basis of economic exchange [98].
The Goods-Dominant Logic: This mindset is also referred in the literature as “neo-
classical economics research tradition” [67], “manufacturing logic” [112] and “old
enterprise logic” [171]. The Goods-Dominant Logic is rooted in manufacturing that
shifted the production from the household to the factory, separating the roles of con-
sumer and producer. The role of the ﬁrm was to create value by maximizing produc-
tion for the sale of goods: the operant resources. In this view sets the ﬁrm to receive
money in return of the created value within the value chain. At the end of the value
chain we have the services that providing marketers value-adding roles of marketing
services. Under this mindset the customers are a target of the market where the cus-
tomers became something to be captured or acted on, explaining statements such as
”segment the market”, “penetrate the market” and “promote to the market” [94].
12

23.
2.1. THE GOODS-DOMINANT LOGIC AND SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC 13
The Service-Dominant Logic: The Service-Dominant Logic is a perspective that
recognized emerging trends in marketing for the purpose of providing an alternative
view of exchange and value creation in markets.
This mindset shifts the traditional focus of a company pushing goods into the mar-
ket through a value chain towards a value network in which actors co-create value.
This network focus of the Service-Dominant Logic is based on the work of Norman
and Ramirez on value constellations [1], [112]. For instance within their work they
refer to the shift from the value chain towards the value network as follows:“Global
competition, changing markets, and new technologies are opening up qualitatively
new ways of creating value. In so volatile a competitive environment, strategy is no
longer a matter of positioning a ﬁxed set of activities along a value chain. Increas-
ingly, successful companies do not just add value, they reinvent it. Their focus of
strategic analysis is not the company or the industry, but the value-creating system
itself, within which di↵erent economic actors - suppliers, business partners, allies,
customers - work together to co-create value” [1].
The main focus of the Service-Dominant Logic is on operand resources deﬁned
as “resources in which an operation or act is performed to produce and e↵ect” [38].
The service-centred view of the Service-Dominant Logic is grounded in the resource-
advantage theory [37],[67] and competence theory [40],[130]. Regarding competence
theory, core competences are deﬁned as intangible processes rather than physical as-
sets [62]. In the Service-Dominant Logic, these capabilities should contribute to the
customer-perceived value: the value-in-use. Other important foundation of this logic
based on capabilities comes from Teece and Pisano [148], by suggesting that the ﬁrm’s
competitive advantage stems from dynamic capabilities embedded in the ﬁrm’s pro-
cesses.
The Service-Dominant Logic emphasizes value as co-created by multiple actors,
rather than viewing value as created by a single actor [131], [29]. This value co-
creation between actors takes palace in service ecosystems also known as value net-
works [156], [160]. In this view, the ﬁrm becomes an essential service provisioning
actor in the value network [96]. In the Service-Dominant Logic, the customer is also
an actor that co-creates value within the value network [156],[94].
As shown in Figure 2.2, the Service-Dominant Logic is deﬁned by eight Founda-
tional Premises, from which four of them are considered its axioms [154]. The axioms
of the Service-Dominant Logic are described as follows:
Axiom 1 (FP1), service is the fundamental basis of exchange. This axiom is based on
the Service-Dominant Logic deﬁnition of Service: the application of operant resources
for the beneﬁt of another entity [154].
Axiom 2 (FP6), the customer is always a co-creator of value. This axiom suggests that
value is co-created through the interaction of actors rather than viewing the ﬁrm as
the producer or creator of value [154], [94].
Axiom 3 (FP8), all economic and social actors are resource integrators [154], [94].
This axiom suggests that integrable resources come from di↵erent kind of sources
like private sources, market sources or even public sources.
Axiom 4 (FP9), value is always determined and phenomenologically determined by the
beneﬁciary. This axiom states that value is experiential rather than the transactional
view of the Goods-Dominant Logic [154],[94].
13

24.
14 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
Axioms &
Foundational Premises (FP)
Axiom 1 (FP1).!
Service is the
fundamental
basis of exchange
Axiom 2 (FP6).
The customer is
always a co-creator of
value
Axiom 3 (FP9). !
All economic actors
and social actors are
resource integrators
Axiom 4 (FP10). !
Value is always
uniquely and
phenomenologically
determined by the
beneﬁciary
(FP2). Indirect
exchange masks the
fundamental basis of
exchange
(FP3). Goods are a
distribution mechanism
for service provision
(FP4). Operant
resources are the
fundamental source of
competitive advantage
(FP5). All economies
are service
economies
(FP7). The enterprise can
only make value
propositions
(FP8). A service-
centered view is
customer oriented and
relational
Figure 2.2: Axioms and Foundational Premises of the Service-Dominant Logic [94]
Comparing the dominant logics The shift from the Goods-Dominant Logic towards
a Service-Dominant Logic requires focusing on competences instead of goods. In the
Service-Dominant Logic, the good is no longer the end product: the good is a mech-
anism for service provision. In the Goods-Dominant Logic the customer is seen as
a passive receptor of goods. However, in the Service-Dominant Logic, the customer
plays an active role as a co-creator of service [154],[94].
The traditional Goods-Dominant Logic focuses on the role of the ﬁrm being a pro-
ducer and the role of the customer on being a consumer. In the Service-Dominant
Logic, the co-creation of value implies that companies can not create value for the
customer, they co-create value with the customers [154],[94].
In Table 2.1, we present comparison between the Goods-Dominant Logic and the
Service-Dominant Logic made by Lusch and Vargo [154]. They compare these logics
by unit of exchange, role of goods and the customer, meaning and determination of
value, interaction between the ﬁrm and the customer, and source of economic growth.
14

25.
2.1. THE GOODS-DOMINANT LOGIC AND SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC 15
Comparison Goods-Dominant Logic Service-Dominant Logic
Primary unit
of exchange
People exchange for goods People exchange for the ben-
eﬁts of specialized compe-
tences
Role of goods Goods are operand re-
sources and end products.
Marketers take matter and
change its form, place, time
and possession
Goods are transmitters of
operant resources (embedded
knowledge); they are interme-
diate “products” that are used
by other operant resources
(customers) as appliances in
value-creation processes.
Role of cus-
tomer
The customer is the re-
cipient of goods. Mar-
keters do things to cus-
tomers; they segment them,
penetrate them, distribute
to them, and promote to
them. The customer is an
operand resource.
The customer is a co-creator of
service. Marketing is a pro-
cess of doing things in inter-
action with the customer. The
customer is primarily an oper-
ant resource, functioning only
occasionally as an operand re-
source.
Determination
and meaning
of value
Value is determined by the
producer, embedded in the
operand resource (goods),
and is deﬁned in terms of
“exchange value”
Value is perceived and de-
termined by the customer
on the basis of “value in
use”. Value results in the
beneﬁcial application of op-
erant resources sometimes
transmitted through operand
resources. Firms can only
make value propositions
Firm-
customer
interaction
The customer is an operand
resource. Customers are
acted on to create transac-
tions with resources.
The customer is primarily an
operant resource. Customers
are active participants in re-
lational exchanges and co-
creation.
Source of eco-
nomic growth
Wealth is obtained from
surplus tangible resources
and goods. Wealth con-
sists of owning, controlling,
and producing operand re-
sources.
Wealth is obtained through
the application and exchange
of specialized knowledge and
skills. It represents the right
to the future use of operant re-
sources
Table 2.1: Goods-Dominant Logic versus Service-Dominant Logic (adapted from [154])
15

26.
16 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
2.2 Related Work on Strategy: Traditional and Service
Dominant Approaches
Firstly, in Section 2.2.1, we study the related work on the traditional approaches to
strategy from business and marketing scholars. Secondly, in Section 2.2.2, we review
the related work on the Service Dominant Logic at the strategic level.
2.2.1 Related work on traditional strategic management perspec-
tives from business and marketing scholars
The strategy concept has its roots in the militarys approach of going to war in Sun
Tzus art of war [153]. Strategic management has adopted this concept for the busi-
ness setting. Regarding the deﬁnitions of strategy in business, Mintzberg is well-
known author in this ﬁeld. Mintzberg asked himself what are strategies and how are
they formed in organizations? [104]. He argued strategy requires multiple deﬁnitions.
He recognizes ﬁve deﬁnitions of strategy: plan, ploy, pattern, position, and perspec-
tive. These deﬁnitions are known in the literature as the 5 Ps of strategy [105]. Each
deﬁnition is described as follows:
5Ps Deﬁnition
Strategy as a plan “a consciously intended course of action, a guideline (or
set of guideline) to deal with a situation. By this deﬁnition
strategies have two essential characteristics: they are made
in advance of the actions to which they apply, and they are
developed consciously and purposefully.” [107]
Strategy as a ploy “is a speciﬁc maneuver intended to outwit an opponent or
competitor. ” [107]
Strategy as a posi-
tion
“ speciﬁcally a means of locating an organization in an en-
vironment. By this deﬁnition strategy becomes the medi-
ating force, or match between organization and environ-
ment, that is, between the internal and the external con-
text .“ [107]
Strategy as a per-
spective
“ its content consisting not just of a chosen position, but
of an ingrained way of perceiving the world. What is of
key importance is that strategy is a perspective shared by
members of an organization, through their intentions and
or by their actions.” [107]
as a pattern “consistency in behavior over time” [107]
Table 2.2: 5Ps of Strategy
16

27.
2.2. RELATED WORK ON STRATEGY 17
Authors classify approaches on strategies in di↵erent ways. In Table 2.3, we
present how some authors classify them as schools.
Author Year Classiﬁcations
Chafee [28] 1985 Linear, adaptive and interpretive schools.
Mintzberg et al.
[106],[107]
1998 Ten schools of thought: environmental, cognitive,
entrepreneurial, power, positioning, cultural, plan-
ning, learning (or emergent), design, and conﬁgura-
tion (or transformation).
HUNT [68] 2000 Business scholars (industry-based, competence-
based and resource-based) and Marketing Scholars
(market-oriented and relational marketing).
Table 2.3: Selected classiﬁcations of strategic approaches
From the classiﬁcations presented in Table 2.3, the classiﬁcation made by Mintzberg
is the most well known [107]. However, we use the classiﬁcations made by Hunt
because the author has worked and collaborated in linking traditional strategic ap-
proaches with the Service-Dominant Logic [69]. Hence, we use his classiﬁcation for
being aware of the strategic approaches that can be used to build a bridge towards
the Service-Dominant Logic.
In this review we do not cover all the approaches of strategy, because our goal is to
use them as a mechanism to communicate a Service-Dominant Strategy rather used
them as the source of our theory for developing artifacts. Moreover, the traditional
strategies play a limited role in the development of our framework.
Hunt [68] establishes two main approaches to strategy: strategies developed by
business scholars and strategies developed by marketing scholars.
strategy
Business
Industry
based
Competence
based
Resource
based
marketing
Market
oriented
Relational
marketing
Figure 2.3: strategies from business and marketing scholars (based on [68])
Within the strategies developed by business scholars we have the industry-based
strategies, resource-based strategies, and competence-based strategies. Within the
strategies developed by marketing scholars we have market oriented strategies and
17

28.
18 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
relational marketing strategies. In Figure 2.3, we illustrate this classiﬁcation as a
conceptual tree. Each identiﬁed strategy is discussed as follows:
Industry-based Strategy: This strategic view was established by Porter to stress the
importance of the industry factors in the competitive landscape. An industry-based
strategy suggests that to achieve competitive advantage ﬁrms should choose indus-
tries, modify their structure, and select a generic strategy, such as cost leadership or
di↵erentiation and focus. Porter argues that a ﬁrm should aim at choosing the best
industries and/or altering the industry structure by raising barriers to entry and in-
creasing its bargaining power over suppliers and customers [127, 128].
Cost
Leadership
Cost
Focus
Differentiation
Differentiation
Focus
Lower cost Differentiation
Narrow
Target
Broad
Target
Figure 2.4: Porter’s matrix [127, 128]
Porter deﬁnes two generic approaches for outperforming other ﬁrms in the in-
dustry: overall cost leadership and di↵erentiation. Overall cost leadership is about
achieving the leadership of an industry on costs, enabled by cost reductions. Cost
leadership usually requires a high market share or other advantages such as favorable
access to raw materials. The Di↵erentiation approach is about creating something
that is perceived as unique within the industry. Porter deﬁnes a third approach, which
acts as a parameter on the cost leadership and di↵erentiation approaches. The Focus
approach describes the scope over which the company should compete based on cost
leadership or di↵erentiation. The ﬁrm can choose to compete in the mass market with
a broad scope, or a focused market segment with a narrow scope. In either case, the
basis of competition will still be either cost leadership or di↵erentiation [127, 128].
Porter’s representation as a matrix is shown in Figure 2.4.
Market
penetration
Market
development
Product
development
Existing
products
New
products
New
market
Existing
market
Figure 2.5: Anso↵’s matrix [8]
18

29.
2.2. RELATED WORK ON STRATEGY 19
Porter’s approach on strategy was preceded by Anso↵ [8]. In Figure 2.5, we show
the matrix developed by Anso↵ that includes four di↵erent growth strategies: market
penetration, market development, product development and diversiﬁcation.
Resource-based Strategy: This strategic view suggests that a ﬁrm should stand pri-
marily on the application of a bundle of valuable tangible or intangible resources at
the ﬁrm’s disposal for achieving a competitive advantage[100]. A ﬁrm’s resources at
a given time could be deﬁned as those assets which are tied semi-permanently to the
ﬁrm. For instance, brand names or in-house knowledge of technology [159].
For transforming a short-run competitive advantage into a sustained competitive
advantage, we require that these resources be heterogeneous in nature and not per-
fectly mobile. This translates into valuable resources that are neither perfectly im-
itable nor substitutable without great e↵ort: the VRIN (valuable, rare,inimitable, and
non-subsitutable) attributes [17]. If these conditions hold, the bundle of resources
can sustain the ﬁrm’s above average returns [126].
A company can appropriate resources that are rare and valuable for the purpose
of gaining a temporary advantage. Such an advantage can be sustained if the ﬁrm can
protect such resources against imitation, transfer, or substitution. A Resource-based
strategy emphasizes that improving and protecting the unique resources of the ﬁrm
will reinforce its strengths and ameliorate its weaknesses.
In this strategic view, resources form the basis of value creating strategies. Within
Resource-based scholars, Treacy and Wiersema assert that companies achieve leader-
ship positions by narrowing their business focus. Treacy and Wiersema identify three
“value-disciplines” that can serve as the basis for strategy: operational excellence,
customer intimacy, and, product leadership [152], [151]. As with driving forces, only
one of these value disciplines can serve as the basis for strategy. In Figure 2.6, we
show Treacy and Wiersema’s model of value disciplines [152].
“Best product”
“Best Total Solution”
Operational excellence Customer intimacy
Product leadership
“Best total cost”
Product
differentiation
Customer
responsive
Operational
competence
Figure 2.6: value disciplines: Threshold vs leadership in customer value (Adapted from [152] )
19

30.
20 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
Competence-based Strategy: This strategic view suggests that ﬁrms should iden-
tify, seek to develop, reinforce, maintain, and leverage distinctive competences for
the purpose of achieving a competitive advantage [68]. A Competence-based strategy
asserts that the competences created by adding capabilities are the sources of compet-
itive advantages and enable ﬁrms to attain their goals [133]. Theses capabilities span
multiple products or businesses and they change slower than the products that they
make possible. This strategic approach is grounded in core competences and dynamic
capabilities. Each strategic approach is described as follows:
Core competences are deﬁned as the collective learning in the organization. They
argue that competences are enhanced as they are applied and shared. Moreover, core
competences can spawn unanticipated products [130]. Instead of looking the com-
pany as business units or products, Hamel and Prahalad suggest to look into the port-
folio of core competences instead of business units [62].
Dynamic capabilities stem from the particular capacity to respond to changing
technologies and markets. Therefore, dynamic capabilities relate to the ﬁrm’s abil-
ity to sense, seize, and transform to generate and exploit internal and external ﬁrm-
speciﬁc competence by responding to and shaping the environment [147]. It is pos-
sible to disaggregate dynamic capabilities into three classes: the capability to sense
opportunities, the capacity to seize opportunities, and the capacity to manage threats
through the combination, recombination and reconﬁguration of assets inside and out-
side the ﬁrm’s boundaries [12, 146].
Market Oriented Strategy: This strategic view suggests that to achieve a competitive
advantage, ﬁrms should gather information on potential customers and competitors
and use the gathered information between business units for guiding strategy [68].
This information should be obtained by using exogenous market factors such as com-
petition and regulation that a↵ects the customer’s preferences, and the current and
future needs of the customer [76].
The starting point of market orientation is market intelligence. Market intelli-
gence goes beyond the verbalized needs of customers by including the analysis of
exogenous factors that inﬂuences the customer’s needs. The generation of market-
ing intelligence not only relies on customer’s surveys, but on a host of complemen-
tary mechanisms such as meetings and discussions with customers and trade parters,
analysis of report sales, customer databases and formal market research [76].
20

31.
2.2. RELATED WORK ON STRATEGY 21
Relational Marketing Strategy: This strategic view suggests that to achieve a com-
petitive advantage, ﬁrms should develop a relationship portfolio with stakeholders
such as customers, suppliers, employees, and competitors [68]. Relationship mar-
keting attracts, maintains and enhances customer relationships. In this approach,
the focus is on servicing and selling to existing customers rather than acquiring new
customers[21]. In Table 2.4, we present selected deﬁnitions of this strategic approach.
Author Year Deﬁnition
Berry [20] 1983 “attracting, maintaining and –in multi-service
organizations– enhancing customer relationships” .
Gummerson
[2]
1999 “ is marketing seen as relationships, networks, and
interaction”.
Sheth [139] 1994 “the understanding, explanation and management
of the ongoing collaborative business relationships
between suppliers and customers”
Gr¨onross
[60]
1996 “relationship marketing is to identify and estab-
lish, maintain, and enhance relationships with cus-
tomers and other stakeholders, at a proﬁt, so the
objectives for all parties involved are met; and
this is done by mutual exchange and fulﬁllment of
promises”.
Table 2.4: Relational Marketing Strategy deﬁnitions
The presented classiﬁcation, based on the kind of scholars, is used to facilitate the
bridge to the Service-Dominant Logic perspectives on strategies in Chapter 4.
2.2.2 Strategic perspectives of the Service Dominant Logic
Research works on Service Dominant Strategy are not common, because management
academics have been paying little attention to services in their research so far. How-
ever, marketing scholars have been active and cooperative with industry in this area
[66]. In the developing research on the Service Dominant Logic at strategic level, we
found three main research papers.
Our search criteria is based on the use of the Service Dominant logic at strategic
level. Research works on Service Dominant strategy are not common. By tracking
down the work of Lusch and Vargo of the Service Dominant Logic to a strategic level
we found the relevant research paper: “Competing through service” published in the
Journal of Retailing [95]. The title of the research paper does not state explicitly a
strategy. However, their research aims to help companies to gain competitive ad-
vantage through the Service Dominant logic. We complement this strategic view by
identifying relevant research focused on the Service Dominant logic at strategic level.
We identify this relevant research by searching on Google Scholar by including the
keywords “strategy” and “strategic”.
Firstly, by searching the keyword “service dominant strategy” in Google Scholar
with quotes we get only two pages with just one relevant result: “Constructing a
Service-Dominant Strategy: A Practice-Theoretical Study of a Start-Up Company”.
This research paper does use the service dominant logic at starting point by develop-
21

32.
22 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
ing the strategy as an application to a real case domain. We use this work as it will
enhance the practical relevance of our service dominant strategy model.
Secondly, by searching the keyword “service dominant strategic” in Google
Scholar with quotes we get two results: “Proposing and conceptualizing a service-
dominant strategic orientation” [73] and ‘Linking Service-Dominant Logic and Strate-
gic Business Practice A Conceptual Model of a Service-Dominant Orientation” [74].
Both research papers are from the same leading author: the ﬁrst paper [73], is an
outcome from a forum on Marketing in which Lusch and Vargo were among the
speakers. Whereas, the second paper is a reﬁnement of the ﬁrst paper, is published
in Journal of Service Research [74].
These research papers are discussed and analyzed in depth in Chapter 4, because
we used them as a theoretical foundation for our artifact development. We provide
an overview of these research papers as follows:
Competing through service: Lusch and Vargo ﬁrst brought the Service Dominant
Logic to the attention of academia [154]. By tracking their work about the Service
Dominant Logic to a strategic level, we consider [95] as their most relevant paper.
Although the title of the research paper does not state explicitly strategy, it aims to
help companies gain a competitive advantage through the Service Dominant Logic.
The strategy for achieving a competitive advantage is formulated through a set of
strategic statements.
Service Dominant Orientation: The second selected research work [73], approaches
strategy as interactions between organizations and customers [73],[74]. These inter-
actions are deﬁned as six capabilities from what the authors refer to as a Service
Dominant Orientation. The Service Dominant Orientation model deﬁnes six inter-
action capabilities at the strategic level. These interactions are derived from the
Foundational Premises (FP) of the Service Dominant Logic statements at the top.
Service Dominant Strategy: The last selected research work uses the Service Dom-
inant Logic to elaborate a Service Dominant strategy within a waste management
start-up [72]. This research is relevant because it is the ﬁrst of this kind for which
the results have been applied to a real world case. It reinforces the practical relevance
of the Service Dominant Logic at the strategic level by developing a Service Domi-
nant Strategy with Action Research, in which a real start-up was used as a case study.
However, the two previous papers about Service Dominant Logic at the strategic level
were ignored. From that paper, no strategic statements can be extracted literally, as
already explained, because they are presented as a comparison between Goods Dom-
inant logic versus Service Dominant logic, e.g., “rigid versus ﬂexible organizational
boundaries.”
2.2.3 Conclusion on Strategy and Service Dominance:
Regarding our analysis on the reviewed strategic approaches, we can conclude the
following:
1. Traditional strategies have been studied by many scholars due a ”manufactur-
ing” approach towards doing business focused on production of goods and the
22

33.
2.3. RELATED WORK ON BUSINESS MODELS 23
value chain: a Goods-Dominant Logic. However, there have been few papers on
Service Dominant Strategy.
2. There are no integrated approaches to what is a Service Dominant Strategy. A
uniﬁed approach to deﬁning a Service Dominant Strategy is needed to further
develop this area of research and to increase the adoption by business practi-
tioners of this approach.
2.3 Related Work on Business Models: Firm-centric,
Network-centric, and Service Dominant Approaches
In line with the strategy and business model layers of our framework, several authors
have agreed that business models are not the same as a strategy [99], [109],[138],
[164], [119]. The large number of works on deﬁning the concept business model reﬂects
the fact that Business Models is an active area of research. However, such authors
recognize that there has been a lack of convergence on such a deﬁnition of the concept
of a business model [14], [109], [170].
Several authors have attempted to represent business models. By extending the
work presented in [170], we can see that authors have referred to the business model
as a statement [145]; a description [9],[158]; a representation [109], [138]; an archi-
tecture [150], [43]; a tool or model [53],[120]; a method [7]; a framework [3]; a pattern
[26]; a set [136]; a path [77]; a template [168]; a blueprint [61]; and an abstraction
[23]. In Table 2.5, we illustrate the many representations adopted by authors for each
of the approaches mentioned above.
Regarding the construction process of business model concepts, there were no for-
mal approaches on how to develop business model tools until Gordijn and Akkermans
[55] proposed a conceptual modeling approach by creating an ontology that borrows
concepts from the business management literature. Ontologies are deﬁned as follows:
“Ontologies are content theories about the sorts of objects, properties of objects, and
relations between objects that are possible in a speciﬁed domain of knowledge” [30].
In [55], Gordijn and Akkermans deﬁned a meta-model and developed a tool for
modeling and evaluating value exchanges: e3value. E3value [54] has its roots in re-
quirement engineering and attempts to do a feasibility study of business models. This
work set the direction on how to develop business model tools in Information Sys-
tems. However, the tool is more focused on evaluating the proﬁtability by modeling
the business as actors exchanging value objects rather than the design of a business
concept.
By following the precedent set by Gordijn and Akkermans [55], Osterwalder [116]
developed a meta-model and an ontology for deﬁning a business model by reviewing
the business management literature. Osterwalder’s Business Model Ontology (BMO)
is structured into several levels of decomposition with increasing depth and com-
plexity. However, in the thesis, they did not apply the BMO to a real case. The BMO
was simpliﬁed for developing a tool for designing business models that is suitable for
business practitioners: the Business Model Canvas (BMC). The BMC has been widely
adopted by business practitioners due to its simplicity and its clear message on what
is a business model and how to specify it.
Regarding the organizational structure taken by business model representation
on business models, scholars have deﬁned them from the ﬁrm perspective, others
23

34.
24 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
Author Year Deﬁnition
Timmers [150] 1998 “An architecture for products, services and information
ﬂows, including a description of various business actors
and their roles; a description of the potential beneﬁts for
the various business actors; and a description of sources
of revenues.”
Stewart &
Zhao [145]
2000 “A statement of how a ﬁrm will make money and sustain
its proﬁt stream over time.”
Afuah, Allan
& Tucci [4]
2000 “The method by which a ﬁrm builds and uses its resources
to o↵er its customers better value than its competitors
and to make money doing so.”
Weill and Vi-
tale [158]
2001 “A description of the roles and relationships among a
ﬁrms consumers, customers, allies, and suppliers that
identiﬁes the major ﬂows of product, information, and
money, and the major beneﬁts to participants.”
Betz [23] 2002 “An abstraction of a business identifying how the business
proﬁtably makes money. Business models are abstracts
about how inputs to an organization are transformed to
value-adding outputs.”
Magretta [99] 2002 “stories that explain how enterprises work.”
Krishnamurthy
[77]
2003 “A path to a companys proﬁtability, an integrated appli-
cation of diverse concepts to ensure the business objec-
tives are met. A business model consists of business ob-
jectives, a value delivery system, and a revenue model.”
Afuah [3] 2004 “A framework for making money. It is the set of activities
which a ﬁrm performs, how it performs them, and when
it performs them so as to o↵er its customers beneﬁts they
want and to earn a proﬁt”
Osterwalder,
Pignerur &
Tucci [120]
2005 “A conceptual tool that contains a set of elements and their
relationships and allows expressing the business logic of
a speciﬁc ﬁrm. It is a description of the value a company
o↵ers to one or several segments of customers and of the
architecture of the ﬁrm and its network of partners” ...
Brousseau &
Penard [26])
2006 “A pattern of organizing exchanges and allocating various
costs and revenue streams so that the production and ex-
change of goods or services becomes viable.”
Haaker et al.
[61]
2006 “A blueprint collaborative e↵ort of multiple companies to
o↵er a joint proposition to their consumers.”
Seelos & Mair
[136]
2007 “A set of capabilities that is conﬁgured to enable value
creation consistent with either economic or social strate-
gic objectives.”
Zott & Amit
[168]
2013 “A template that depicts the way the ﬁrm conducts its
business.”
Table 2.5: Selected Business Model Deﬁnitions
from the network perspective [169]. We review the most relevant approaches in the
following sections:
24

35.
2.3. RELATED WORK ON BUSINESS MODELS 25
2.3.1 Firm-centric
Most ﬁrm-centric approaches base their business model construct on Porter’s value
chain concept [109]. However, some authors have extended the value chain concept
to concept of a value network, while maintaining the focus on the ﬁrm.
The value chain is considered by the authors of the Service Dominant Logic as a
part of the traditional manufacturing mindset: the Goods Dominant Logic. In the
value chain, there is a value creation process that starts at the left with raw materials,
then the ﬁrm creates value as a good for selling it to the customer at the end on the
right side of the chain. After the good is created, services add value.
The value chain perspective is present in business model deﬁnitions where authors
deﬁne the concept as “creating value.” This value creating position taken by such
authors implies that value can only be created by the ﬁrm. In Table 2.6, we present
deﬁnitions from the literature in which a value chain focus on business models is
explicitly stated.
From the ﬁrm-centric deﬁnitions presented in Table 2.6, Timmers deﬁnes a busi-
ness model as an architecture that is based on the value chain construction and decon-
struction [150]. Chesbrough [32] focuses on value creation and value capture while
maintaining a manufacturing mindset approach to the value chain as being from raw
materials to the customers. Rappa’s deﬁnition states explicitly that business models
specify where the ﬁrm is positioned within the value chain approaches. Osterwalder
& Pigneur developed a business model tool, the Business Model Canvas, for design-
ing business models. This approach includes value network aspects besides the tradi-
tional value chain approach. However, the value is clearly created on the right side,
by the focal organization, for the customer on the left side.
From the business model works presented in Table 2.6, the only one that is deﬁned
as a tool is the Business Model Canvas. We study in depth the business model canvas,
due to our focus on business model tools and their construction.
25

36.
26 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
Author Year Deﬁnition
Timmers [150] 1998 ....“business models can be based on value chain decon-
struction and re-construction”...
Chesbrough
[32]
2007 “At its heart, a business model performs two important
functions: value creation and value capture. First, it de-
ﬁnes a series of activities, from procuring raw materials to
satisfying the ﬁnal consumer, which will yield a new prod-
uct or service in such a way that there is a net value cre-
ated throughout the various activities.” “Second, a business
model captures value from a portion of those activities
for the ﬁrm developing and operating it.”
Rappa 2008 “A method of doing business by which a company can
sustain itself, that is, generate revenue. The business
model spells out how a company makes money by speci-
fying where it is positioned in the value chain.”
Osterwalder &
Pigneur [119]
2002 “The main purpose of a company is the creation of value
that customers are willing to pay for. This value is the
outcome of a conﬁguration of inside and outside activi-
ties and processes. To deﬁne the value creation process in a
business model, we use the value chain framework (Porter et
al., 1985) and its extension, such as deﬁned by Stabell and
Fjeldstad (Stabell et al., 1998). They extend the idea of the
value chain with the value shop and the value network.
Former describes the value creation process of service
providers, whereas latter describes brokering and inter-
mediary activities.”
Table 2.6: Selected Business Model Deﬁnitions
The Business Model Canvas and the Business Model Ontology: The Business
Model Canvas (BMC) is the leading business model conceptualization focused on
the ﬁrm. The Business Model Canvas is the further development of a research work
presented as a meta-model under the name Business Model Ontology (BMO). The
BMO has its roots in the Information System domain as a PhD thesis. The model,
after several iterations, led to the development of a simpliﬁed tool that we know
today as the Business Model Canvas (BMC). In Figure 2.7, we show the original BMO
meta-model. The simpliﬁed BMC meta-model is shown in Figure 2.8.
In BMO, a business model is “understood as a conceptual tool that contains a
set of elements and their relationships and allows expressing the business logic of
a speciﬁc ﬁrm.” The BMO focuses on the value a company o↵ers (what?) to one or
several segments of customers (who?) and the architecture of the ﬁrm and its network
of partners for creating, marketing and delivering this value and relationship capital
(how?), in order to generate proﬁtable and sustainable revenue streams (how much?)
[57].
The BMC is a tool to design and analyze business models. The BMC describes
a business model through nine basic building blocks that show the logic of how a
company intends to make money.
The visual representation of the business model canvas is shown in Figure 2.9.
26

38.
28 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
What are the most important costs inherent in our business model?
Which Key Resources are most expensive?
Which Key Activities are most expensive?
Through which Channels do our Customer Segments
want to be reached?
How are we reaching them now?
How are our Channels integrated?
Which ones work best?
Which ones are most cost-efficient?
How are we integrating them with customer routines?
For what value are our customers really willing to pay?
For what do they currently pay?
How are they currently paying?
How would they prefer to pay?
How much does each Revenue Stream contribute to overall revenues?
For whom are we creating value?
Who are our most important customers?
What type of relationship does each of our Customer
Segments expect us to establish and maintain with them?
Which ones have we established?
How are they integrated with the rest of our business model?
How costly are they?
What value do we deliver to the customer?
Which one of our customer’s problems are we helping to solve?
What bundles of products and services are we offering to each Customer Segment?
Which customer needs are we satisfying?
What Key Activities do our Value Propositions require?
Our Distribution Channels?
Customer Relationships?
Revenue streams?
Who are our Key Partners?
Who are our key suppliers?
Which Key Resources are we acquiring from partners?
Which Key Activities do partners perform?
What Key Resources do our Value Propositions require?
Our Distribution Channels? Customer Relationships?
Revenue Streams?
Day Month Year
No.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
Figure 2.9: Business Model Canvas [118]
tomer segment.”
• Key resources: “Describes the most important assets required to make a busi-
ness model work.”
• Key activities: “Describes the most important things a company must do to
make its business model work.”
• Key partnerships: “Describes the network of suppliers and partners that make
the business model work.”
• Cost structure: “Describes all cost incurred to operate a business model.”
As shown in Figures 2.8 and 2.9, the BMC includes a network perspective on the
left side of the meta-model. However, the BMC has a manufacturing driven repre-
sentation due to the value chain approach taken towards the relationships of the ele-
ments. For instance, the BMC adopts a value chain perspective by using the partner
network as suppliers and customers as consumers.
The BMC meta-model organizes and relates its elements by using the value chain
approach. However, if we deﬁne other relationships between the elements by using
a Service Dominant perspective, we will be able to relate them in a di↵erent way.
Moreover, due the inclusion of an extended value chain as a value network considered
as an ingredient of the construction of the business model canvas, we think that we
can use the deﬁned elements that ﬁt a Service Dominant perspective and discard the
goods dominant approaches in its representation.
28

39.
2.3. RELATED WORK ON BUSINESS MODELS 29
2.3.2 Network-centric approaches
In network-centric approaches to business models, scholars have been setting direc-
tions on how to approach this perspective. As suggested in [167], a focal organization
is no longer a passive actor, but cooperates with other ﬁrms and actors in a network-
based ecosystem.
In Table 2.7, we present deﬁnitions from the literature in which a network focus
on business models is explicitly stated.
Author Year Deﬁnition
Gordijn &
Akkermans [55]
2001 “Are designed to help deﬁne how economic value is cre-
ated and exchanged within a network of actors”
Shafer et al.
[138]
2005 “A representation of a ﬁrm’s underlying core logic and
strategic choices for creating and capturing value” within
a value network
Haaker et al.
[61]
2006 “A blueprint collaborative e↵ort of multiple companies
to o↵er a joint proposition to their consumers”
Tian et al. [149] 2008 “The roles and relationships of a company, its customers,
partners, and suppliers, as well as the ﬂow of goods, in-
formation, and money among these parties and the ﬁnan-
cial beneﬁts for those involved”
Zott & Amitt
[167]
2009 “A ﬁrm’s business model depicts the content (goods and
information exchanged), structure (players and how they
are linked), and governance of the transaction of the ﬁrm
in relation to the networks in which is embedded (includ-
ing the control of information, resources, and goods, as
well how the value is shared).”
Palo & Tahtinen
[122]
2011 “A network perspective on business models for emerging
technology-based services”
Table 2.7: Selected Network-centric Business Model Deﬁnitions
From the works in the literature presented in Table 2.7, we found that e3Value [55]
and BEAM [149] include a graphical representation. We found that these are tools that
focus only on ecosystem modeling and analysis by focusing on value exchange. We
describe e3value and BEAM as follows:
29

40.
30 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
e3value: In Figure 2.10, we show a simple example of an e3value model [54]. As
presented in the ﬁgure, e3Value models the exchange of value though value ports.
However, the model is more focused on determining the feasibility of the business
model by paying attention to the exchange. This calculation is done by analyzing the
cash ﬂow of the value exchanged.
Figure 2.10: Simple example of e3value [161]
As shown in Figure 2.11, e3value o↵ers the possibility of including activities of
the actors in the value network represented as rounded rectangles. However, one of
the major issues concerning e3value is the complexity of modeling the business. As
shown in Figure 2.11, the user of the tool is required to set complex operations such
as “OR join” or “OR fork.” We think that this level of complexity is not suitable for
conducting workshops with business practitioners.
Figure 2.11: e3value business model [56]
30

41.
2.3. RELATED WORK ON BUSINESS MODELS 31
BEAM: In Figure 2.12, we show the service ecosystem representation of BEAM
[149]. Exchanges between the actors of the ecosystem in BEAM are represented by ar-
rows. However, there is no description of what is represented in the Figure and there
is no related meta-model with an illustration of the service ecosystem. Moreover,
there are no clear guidelines on how to use the tool.
Figure 2.12: Service Ecosystem representation [149]
The current approaches to network-centric business models o↵er a focus on value
exchange in a value network by using modeling tools such as the connections of nodes
by arrows. However, they lack the simplicity and structure needed for adoption by
business practitioners. Moreover, current approaches to business models are limited
to network-focused exchange and they do not include other aspects from a Service
Dominant strategy such as a focus on the value-in-use and the role of the customer as
a co-creator of value.
31

42.
32 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
2.3.3 Related Work on Service Dominant Business Models
The business model concept in Service Science has acknowledged the shift in the divi-
sion of labor, from being a division within the ﬁrm, towards being a division between
ﬁrms [44]. By reviewing the recent literature on business models in Service Science,
we found two works matching the business model word in the title. The business
model deﬁnitions presented in these works are shown in Table 2.8.
Author Year Deﬁnition
Nenonen &
Storbacka [111]
2010 The business model framework contains three types of
components: design principles, resources and capabil-
ities
Smedlund [141] 2012 The capability-based value co-creation model describes
all the actors involved in the service that contribute in
one way or another to the creation of value.
Table 2.8: Selected Business Model Deﬁnitions
Business Model Framework: In the approach of Nenonen & Storbacka [111], the
authors deﬁne the business model as a two dimensional matrix as shown in Figure
2.13.
However, that approach does not seem to reﬂect the aspects of the Service Dom-
inant strategy such as value co-creation, focus on activities, value-in-use, and a net-
work focus. The only aspect that we found within the text is a network focus, but this
is not reﬂected in the deﬁnition. Moreover, the tool does not seem appropriate for de-
signing business models, because the authors do not include any practical examples
on how to use the tool for designing business models.
Figure 2.13: Business Model Framework [111]
32

43.
2.3. RELATED WORK ON BUSINESS MODELS 33
Value Co-creation Model: Smedlund’s approach [141] to business models focuses
on value co-creation and identiﬁes the platform (also known as multi-sided networks)
as a fundamental aspect of business models in Service Science.
As shown in Figure 2.14, the value co-creation model provides a way to analyze
value co-creation as an integration between the capabilities of suppliers and cus-
tomers. However, the model lacks a practical approach towards designing business
models as a management tool.
Figure 2.14: Value co-creation model[141]
2.3.4 Conclusions on Business Models works
In view of our analysis of the reviewed business model approaches, we can conclude
the following:
1. The BMC is a widely adopted business model representation by practitioners
focused on the ﬁrm. The visual representation and the meta-model of the BMC
provides a value chain perspective rather a network-centric one. However, The
nine elements that deﬁne the business model can be useful for deriving a Service
Dominant perspective due to the inclusion of the value network in the construc-
tion process of the BMC.
2. The BMC includes a network of partners. However, the customers are not part of
this network. In the BMC, the partners are the suppliers and the customers are
the consumers. However, the network aspects of the BMC can be enhanced with
the Service Dominant Strategy by developing a new meta-model that establishes
the required missing relationships for co-creating value.
3. In building our own Service Dominant Business Model artifact, we used the
BMC as the standard of what is a business model. However, we ﬁltered out the
elements that do not follow a Service Dominant Strategy, and derived a service
33

44.
34 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
dominant perspective on the business model elements that can be projected by
using a Service Dominant strategy.
4. Current network centric approaches to business models are limited to exploring
the value network. However, there are no clear relations with the concepts es-
tablished in ﬁrm-centric approaches such as value propositions. Moreover, the
network-centric approaches fail to include the role of the ﬁrm in the business
model.
5. The construction process as a Business Model Ontology is a proven method for
developing management tools.
6. Current approaches to business models in Service Science do not provide man-
agement tools focused for designing them.
7. A business model conceptualization in Service Science should focus on the value
network. However, we need to include what is the role of the ﬁrm in the value
network to overcome the issues in the network-centric approaches.
8. A Service Dominant business model conceptualization should be able to model
the platform that is deﬁned as a two-sided market between suppliers and cus-
tomers.
9. Firm-centric approaches to business models study value creation and appropri-
ation. However, the Service Dominant Strategy is focused on value co-creation.
Thus, to reframe the business model by using the Service Dominant strategy, we
need to focus on value co-creation and value sharing.
2.4 Related Work on Integrated Layers
In this section, we review the literature on business design approaches comparable to
our framework. These approaches are works that include multiple levels of design-
ing a business: strategy, business models, processes or compositions, and services.
We take these generic layers instead of the speciﬁc layers of our framework to facili-
tate the comparison with other approaches. In Table 2.9, we present frameworks that
address three or more generic layers: strategy, business models, compositions or pro-
cesses, and services. On each generic layer, we evaluate whether the layer has been
Identiﬁed by the authors, whether it has been Developed by the authors, and whether
it has been Integrated as an element from other authors.
Author Strategy Business
Model
Composition
or process
Services
Al-Debei [5], [6] Identiﬁed Developed Identiﬁed Absent
Osterwalder & Pigneur
[119]
Identiﬁed Developed Identiﬁed Absent
Sanz et al. [134] (IBM) Integrated Absent Developed Developed
De Castro et al. [41], [42] Absent Integrated Developed Developed
Table 2.9: Comparable approaches form the literature with layers of our framework
We describe the analyzed frameworks in Table 2.9 as follows:
34

45.
2.4. RELATED WORK ON INTEGRATED LAYERS 35
2.4.1 Business-IS Alignment (Al-Debei)
Al-Debei [6] conceptualizes the business model as a framework and identiﬁes three
connected layers: Strategy, Business Models and Business Process.
Figure 2.15: Value [6]
As shown in Figure 2.15, Al-Debei deﬁnes the business model as the four value
dimensions: Value Proposition, Value Architecture, Value Network and Value Finance
[6]. These dimensions are described in Table 2.10
Value dimensions Description
Value Proposition “A way that demonstrates the business logic of creating
value for customers and/or to each party involved through
o↵ering products and services that satisfy the needs of
their target segments.”
Value Architecture “An architecture for the organization including its techno-
logical architecture and organizational infrastructure that
allows the provisioning of products and services in addi-
tion to information ﬂows.”
Value Network “A way in which an organization enables transactions
through coordination and collaboration among parties
and multiple companies.”
Value Finance “A way in which organizations manage issues related to
costing, pricing, and revenue breakdown to sustain and
improve its creation of revenue.”
Table 2.10: Four value dimensions (as described in [6])
35

46.
36 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
Strategy(
Business(Model(
Business(Process(
Figure 2.16: Relationship between Strategy, Business Models and Business Process (Adapted from [5])
As shown in Figure 2.16, Al-Debei identiﬁes the transitions between the strategy
and business models, and, business models and business processes. These transitions
are described as in Table 2.11.
Transition Description
From strategy to
business model
“The business organization translates its broad strategy
into more speciﬁc business architectural and ﬁnancial ar-
rangements needed in order to achieve the strategic goals
and objectives of the business. Moreover, the business
model in the ﬁrst intersection point is dependent on and
derived from the business” [5].
From business
model to business
processes
“The business model acts as the base system from which
the detailed operational business process model should be
derived” [5].
Table 2.11: Layer Transitions
2.4.2 Business Logic (Osterwalder)
Osterwalder focuses his work on business models. However, he identiﬁed a connec-
tion between the Business Model concept and the Strategy and Business Processes. He
argues that the logic of a business system for creating value lies behind the processes
[119]. As shown in Figure 2.17, he positions the business model concept between the
layers of the strategy and of the business process. Prior to the publication of his PhD
thesis, his preliminary understanding of a business model was the following: “we un-
derstand a business model as the conceptual and architectural implementation of a
business strategy and as the foundation for the implementation of business processes”
[119].
36

47.
2.4. RELATED WORK ON INTEGRATED LAYERS 37
Figure 2.17: Business Logic triangle [119]
As presented in Section 2.3, the BMC is placed between the ﬁrm and the network.
However, if we take a closer look at the network aspects, we can establish a relation-
ship with business processes. In his PhD dissertation, he argues the following: “By
increasing the granularity of description of Value conﬁguration, the partnerships and
capabilities it would be possible to close the gap between Business strategy and busi-
ness processes.”
2.4.3 CBM to Business Services (Sanz et al.)
Sanz et al. are able to integrate the strategy layer with business services and busi-
ness processes. However, they did not ﬁnd an explicit identiﬁcation of the layers as
a model. Sanz et al. [134] identiﬁed the componentization of the business level ele-
ments into Business Services and its relationship with business processes and strategy.
The Component Business Model (CBM) is being positioned by IBM as a Strategic
tool [71]. As stated by IBM’s Institute for Business Value: “CBM allows ﬁrms to eval-
uate the goals and strategy of the entire enterprise to take simultaneous advantage of
internal and external specialization” [71]. CBM “is an industry modeling approach
for addressing business strategy and analysis, i.e., it is used to examine and analyze a
business. CBM views an enterprise as a set of non-overlapping business components
in order to identify opportunities for innovation and improvement” [134].
Figure 2.18: IBM Component Business Model
37

48.
38 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
As shown in Figure 2.18, the CBM uses a two axis matrix for organizing the com-
ponents of an enterprise by competency and accountability levels. Along the horizon-
tal axis, the components are categorized as a set of business competence categories:
manage, design, buy, make, and sell. Along the vertical axis, the components are
categorized by the level of strategic decisions: direct, control, and execute.
Figure 2.19: IBM Component Business Model as a network [135]
In Figure 2.19, we show IBM’s approach to illustrating a business ecosystem in a
Component Business Model. Sanz et al. point out that a service-based representation
of this business ecosystem enables the choreography of selected nodes as a business
process.
Figure 2.20: IBM’s Service Editor [135]
38

49.
2.4. RELATED WORK ON INTEGRATED LAYERS 39
The identiﬁed components from the CBM are catalogued into a software tool as
business services [134]. As shown in Figure 2.20, a software tool facilitates the man-
agement of business services and business processes. The relationship on between
these two levels is established by deﬁning business processes as a choreography of
business services [135]. Moreover, the tool can be used for deﬁning a process by using
individual Business Services.
2.4.4 SOD-M (De Castro et al.)
The Service Oriented Development Method (SOD-M) is a software services develop-
ment approach that integrates the following layers: business model, service composi-
tions as processes, and business services [42].
Figure 2.21: SOD-M [42]
In Figure 2.21, we show the SOD-M development process. The method uses the
existing e3value business model method and process models for deﬁning the Business
Services. Then, the Business Services are composed by using Use Cases [42]. However,
the method is more focused on the implementation from Business Services to Software
Services for achieving an alignment between the business view and the information
system view.
39

50.
40 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
In Figure 2.22, we show how the value exchange approach in e3value helps in the
identiﬁcation of the elements related to a business process.
Figure 2.22: SOD-M [42]
As shown in Figure 2.22, the business services and business tasks are associated
with activities within a business process. The actors of e3value such as end consumer
and business collaborators are assigned to the swim-lanes of the represented business
process.
40

51.
2.4. RELATED WORK ON INTEGRATED LAYERS 41
2.4.5 Conclusions on Integrated Approaches
In Figure 2.23, we illustrate the ﬁndings on the related works. Currently, there are
no frameworks that integrate the four aspects into one working method for business
design.
Strategy
Business Models
Business Processes
Business Services
Business Processes
as a composition
Strategy
Business Models
Business Services
Composition
De Castro et al. (2009)
Osterwalder(2002)
Al-debei (2010)Sanz et al. (2007)
Figure 2.23: Related works on integrated layers
From our review of integrated layers, we learned the following:
1. Business Services can be integrated in Business Services Compositions as Busi-
ness Processes.
2. Business Services can be derived from Strategy as IBM’s CBM. However, the
business model is missing in this particular integration.
3. Current approaches are built by taking a Service Oriented approach to deﬁning
the enterprise as components that can be integrated. However, there are no in-
tegrated approaches for designing businesses that are built with a special focus
on Service Dominant Strategy driven by a Service Dominant Logic.
4. Current composition approaches are Service Oriented rather than Service Domi-
nant. This is explained due their focus just on services as the components, rather
than on composition as the service for the customer and with the customer.
5. A Business framework can be deﬁned as four layers: strategy, business models,
business processes as a service composition and business services.
41

52.
42 CHAPTER 2. RELATEDWORK
Strategy
Business Model
Business Process /
Service Composition
Business
Services
S-BS
S-BM
BM-BP
BS-SC
Service-Oriented Research Business Model Research
Figure 2.24: Related works on integrated layers
In Figure 2.24, we illustrate our ﬁndings from the analyzed integrated frameworks
for strategy, business, models, business service compositions, and business services,
by categorizing them between frameworks developed by business model researchers
(Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.1) and by representing our ﬁndings within the rectangle on the
right, and Service Oriented researchers (Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.4) and representing our
ﬁndings within the rectangle on the left.
From the frameworks developed by the Business Model researchers [5] , [119],
scholars have argued that business models can be developed by using the strategy
(represented with an arrow labeled as S-BM in Figure 2.24) and its operationalization
is achieved by deﬁning business processes (represented with an arrow labeled as BM-
BP in Figure 2.24).
From the frameworks developed by Service Oriented researches [134], [41], schol-
ars have argued that strategy can deﬁne a set of business components that can be
translated into a set of business services represented within a business service cata-
logue (represented with an arrow labeled by S-BS in Figure 2.24) and these business
services can be composed as a business process represented with an arrow labeled by
BS-SC in Figure 2.24).
42

53.
2.5. CONCLUSIONS 43
2.5 Conclusions
In this chapter, we analyzed the related work on strategy, business models, and inte-
grated frameworks. We did not review the literature on business services and business
service compositions, because it was included in the construction of the artifacts from
these layers as presented in Chapter 6.
On strategy, there are few works regarding the deﬁnition of a Service Dominant
Strategy. Due their strong academic focus, these works can be used as a theoretical
foundation for deﬁning a management tool for designing a Service Dominant Strategy.
On Business Models, there are few approaches to deﬁning a Service Dominant per-
spective for the concept. However, they do not integrate a Service Dominant Strategy
into the construction process. Currently, the BMC is the most advanced tool for de-
signing business models, but it is focused on a ﬁrm perspective on the value chain
and lacks the perspective of the Service Dominant Strategy. We can use the elements
deﬁned in the BMC for deriving a Service Dominant perspective on the concept and
focus the tool towards the role of the ﬁrm within the network rather its role within
the value chain.
On Integrated frameworks, we reviewed research works that integrate two or more
aspects on strategy, business models, compositions and services. We found that cur-
rently there are no approaches that develop and integrate the four layers deﬁned in
our framework. However, we can use the directions set in the reviewed works for
developing the layers of our own framework.
43